Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hey Vortex Gang, Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective to solve a problem. My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a required component for these LENR systems. I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the requirement. I would be very skeptical of Rossi though, considering his past work and current behavior surrounding the E-Cat, but that's just me.
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
Yes there has been. My work on the subject. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterf.html Frank Znidarsic I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the requirement. -Original Message- From: Xavier Luminous xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 3:58 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hey Vortex Gang, Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective to solve a problem. My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a required component for these LENR systems. I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the requirement. I would be very skeptical of Rossi though, considering his past work and current behavior surrounding the E-Cat, but that's just me.
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
That's kind of vauge... which one of these documents would you recommend for Rossi type LENR math? On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Yes there has been. My work on the subject. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterf.html Frank Znidarsic I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the requirement. -Original Message- From: Xavier Luminous xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 3:58 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hey Vortex Gang, Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective to solve a problem. My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a required component for these LENR systems. I don't know whether this question can be answered, because there doesn't seem to be any mathematical formalism surrounding the purported LENR type reactions, so there's no way you can predict the requirement. I would be very skeptical of Rossi though, considering his past work and current behavior surrounding the E-Cat, but that's just me.
RE: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
Jojo, This issue of RF input in the Rossi-style reactor can be no more than an educated guess, since too little information is out there. It would be interesting to hear other informed opinions on this detail, but here is a start. Rossi apparently still uses so-called RF now, but he did not do so at first; and DGT does not use it at all - so RF (which is merely a place-mark for some kind of non-resistive input) - is not necessary to get the gain, BUT may be advantageous. Few doubt that Rossi has used it ever since it first was introduced and it may be more efficient than heat from a resistance heater for a number of reasons. The first time the device was seen and demonstrated in Bologna, the unit was labeled with a tag in English as a Tesla Coil power supply, and was the identical size to neon ballast, indicating that it is simply a high voltage transformer. When used as a gas discharge inside a pressurized reactor, the HV may provide what is arguably RF but which is more like noise in the RF spectrum and less like RF used for communication. This may have changed since then, as the power supply is now hidden in the main control box. There is a long history in LENR of glow discharge experiments providing anomalies, even without nano-anything. Even before Mizuno's success with glow discharge, it was used by the Correas who seem to have faded into oblivion. Anyway - that basic subject of glow discharge in a high pressure environment, would be a good place to start. You can see here that even Naudin was able to get thermal gain from the glow discharge alone: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfrdatas.htm . so it probably cannot hurt :-) This would be a different situation is a pressurized gas, since you need more voltage, and it is increasingly dangerous - so you are on your own. Jones From: Jojo Jaro Hey Vortex Gang, Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective to solve a problem. My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a required component for these LENR systems. The opinion appears to be varied. On one hand, there is Rossi and CHAN/PHEN who claim RF is required; both of whom I consider dubious sources as far as this topic is concerned. It seems only Rossi and Chan/Phen know for sure if RF is being used; and I am not sure both of these entities are being truthful. Some people like Piantelli and Focardi seems to use RF for initiation of the process only. Many are of this persuasion. If I recall correctly, DGT does not seem to use RF. So Vortex gang, what is the consensus? Is RF required? If it is required, how does one deliver such a signal into the reactants? I have been mulling over the second problem of delivery and I am speculating that a coil of magnet wire around the reactor might work. To that end, I am designing a coil onto my reactor. But I can't seem to find an off the shelf component to drive the RF signal itself with enough power. It seems to me that the best way to do this is to simply use a broad-spectrum RF signal since we do not know exactly what frequency will initiate the phenomenom. Delivering a signal that contains all frequencies might work since one of those signal is bound to be the signal frequency that's required. Essentially a noise generator for the entire frequency range. Is such a signal generator possible? Does anyone know how such a device can be built? Remember we are not overly concerned with the signal itself, just the frequency and the power. In fact, an irregular signal would probably work better because of the varied harmonics present.
[Vo]:Web site for Dick Smith's offer of $1 millon
See: http://dicksmith.internetage.com/
[Vo]:Siemens, National Instruments US Navy
I know there was a flurry of posts a couple of weeks ago regarding National Instruments not working with Rossi anymore. Additionaly, speculation at some levels of Rossi working with Siemens and posts pointing to the US Navy being the first customer I stumbled across this article on the web regarding the US Navy and Siemens: http://livewire.electricalmarketing.com/2010/03/23/siemens-signs-contract-to-provide-navy-with-power-metering-equipment/ Excerpt: Siemens also received orders for project management services along with gas, water and steam flow meters that provide data to the WinPM.Net systems So does this support NI being dropped for Siemens because of their contract with the US Navy? If I missed info along these lines that was submitted to this mailing list - I apologize in advance. Joe
[Vo]:Bulk Calorimetry Performed on E-Cat?
At 3:21 in this TEDx Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmgTo2Kw1U Foccardi makes a statement that is best interpreted as meaning the second experiment he ran with Rossi was bulk calorimetry rather than flow calorimetry.
Re: [Vo]:Bulk Calorimetry Performed on E-Cat?
What do you mean by bulk calorimetry? Isoperibolic? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bulk Calorimetry Performed on E-Cat?
One of the tests proposed that gets away from a lot of the variables is to take a body of water with a known temperature and mass, and repeatedly recirculate it producing a higher temperature for the body of water from which can be derived a lower bound on the energy. I call this bulk calorimetry as opposed to flow. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: What do you mean by bulk calorimetry? Isoperibolic? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:read Stanton Friedman's Flying Saucers and Science
Yes, good 'old Stanton F Now, while he was an expert on nuclear propulsion back in the 50's,,, and he certainly has made a living doing lectures on flying saucers and ufos and/or the Gov coverup,,, a fact still remains that no-one down here will likely ever know the full extent of the extremely highly developed level of sophistication and capacity of the technology that advanced civilizations have created over the millions if not billions of years,,, that is now enabling them to 'Be' in-space (in the absolute), as opposed to living a relatively short-lived life down here (thanks, but no thanks). There's only one system that can take us to the stars w/o trouble or fail,,, not 2, 3, 4, or 12, or 20,,, just 'One' and 'Only' One. Technological perfection will take many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, or millions of years of phenomenally costly RD of the highly specified materials, along with the 'One' process that can enable a Perfected Independent Light Energy/Propulsion State to be achieved',,, of which, can only happen when all mechanical-energy and/or this dibilitating biological-baggage has been completely eliminated (bummer!). Sadly, for our race of times-long-past biologically-dependent human beings, and/or the mode of functionality associated with it, we will not likely soon, even consider the One System that simply put, has no equal,,, of which, is largely due to the hard cold fact that it is not as simple as most humanosaurs tend to think (actually, dinosaurs did alot of chomping chewing, while consuming mass quantites). Stanton does a chapter on nuclear propulsion, which he worked on in the 1950's. I had no clue how far along this technology was. If we would have continued we may have had probes at the nearest stars by now. Then again we may have had another nuclear mess. I liked the idea of ejecting fast neutrons as a propellant. They go at 10% the speed of light and may have produced a measurable continuous thrust for some time. The goal is one g of thrust for one year, that would get us out there. Shielding was a problem with nuclear reactors in space and, perhaps, the shielding effect of cold fusion may now offer a solution, I don't know. /HTML
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
The physics term for what Rossi is doing with his hydrogen envelope is a “non ideal plasma”. The way that this stuff is created is to heat a gas; in this case hydrogen until a plasma is produced, then let the ions cools just enough to recombined with electrons to form atoms in a highly excited state. This is why Rossi and DGT use short bursts of heat produced by a central internal heater lasting a second or two to ionize a small central volume in the hydrogen envelop. This produces a small volume of ions of hydrogen and an additive element like potassium or lithium or cesium, and element with one valence electron. When the heat is turned off, the ionized vapor of this secret sauce catalyst will condense by reabsorbing a valence electron through cooling. This cooling pushes the ion into a highly polarized Rydberg state. IMHO, it is these various Rydberg species that underpins the Rossi reaction. Rossi only uses the RF to maintain a controlled steady state condition in the hydrogen non ideal plasma when he is running in self-sustain mode. The RF probably is a depressant to scramble the polarization in the plasma to keep the reaction from running away by overheating into a burn up state. IOW, the RF may just be a wet blanket to keep things under control. * * * * On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hey Vortex Gang, Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective to solve a problem. My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a required component for these LENR systems. The opinion appears to be varied. On one hand, there is Rossi and CHAN/PHEN who claim RF is required; both of whom I consider dubious sources as far as this topic is concerned. It seems only Rossi and Chan/Phen know for sure if RF is being used; and I am not sure both of these entities are being truthful. Some people like Piantelli and Focardi seems to use RF for initiation of the process only. Many are of this persuasion. If I recall correctly, DGT does not seem to use RF. So Vortex gang, what is the consensus? Is RF required? If it is required, how does one deliver such a signal into the reactants? I have been mulling over the second problem of delivery and I am speculating that a coil of magnet wire around the reactor might work. To that end, I am designing a coil onto my reactor. But I can't seem to find an off the shelf component to drive the RF signal itself with enough power. It seems to me that the best way to do this is to simply use a broad-spectrum RF signal since we do not know exactly what frequency will initiate the phenomenom. Delivering a signal that contains all frequencies might work since one of those signal is bound to be the signal frequency that's required. Essentially a noise generator for the entire frequency range. Is such a signal generator possible? Does anyone know how such a device can be built? Remember we are not overly concerned with the signal itself, just the frequency and the power. In fact, an irregular signal would probably work better because of the varied harmonics present.
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
The work relates particle size to frequency of stimulation. The best read is The Control of the Natural Forces linked below. I've done lots of stimulation of wires and particles of nickle and palladium in hydrogen, helium, and deuterium.No thermal or RF energy was produced to date. I'm missing something and know not what it is. Frank Z -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 7:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF Yes there has been. My work on the subject. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterf.html Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
Jones and Axil, Thanks mucho. Your last two post has been most insightful. I now know that I need to heat the central core of the reactor instead of the sides. I will modify my design again. Jones, I will try the HV Ballast as my RF source. I will make sure I am protected from any explosions. I have replace an ordinary pressure gauge with a pressure transducer so that I can monitor the experiment from a distance on a Data Logging software. The entire contraption will be located inside an 8 Concrete Blast Chamber. I suspect a stick of dynamite will be contained by my blast chamber. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF The physics term for what Rossi is doing with his hydrogen envelope is a “non ideal plasma”. The way that this stuff is created is to heat a gas; in this case hydrogen until a plasma is produced, then let the ions cools just enough to recombined with electrons to form atoms in a highly excited state. This is why Rossi and DGT use short bursts of heat produced by a central internal heater lasting a second or two to ionize a small central volume in the hydrogen envelop. This produces a small volume of ions of hydrogen and an additive element like potassium or lithium or cesium, and element with one valence electron. When the heat is turned off, the ionized vapor of this secret sauce catalyst will condense by reabsorbing a valence electron through cooling. This cooling pushes the ion into a highly polarized Rydberg state. IMHO, it is these various Rydberg species that underpins the Rossi reaction. Rossi only uses the RF to maintain a controlled steady state condition in the hydrogen non ideal plasma when he is running in self-sustain mode. The RF probably is a depressant to scramble the polarization in the plasma to keep the reaction from running away by overheating into a burn up state. IOW, the RF may just be a wet blanket to keep things under control. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hey Vortex Gang, Once again, I am in need of the collective intelligence of this collective to solve a problem. My question pertains to the use of RF in Rossi or DGT systems. Is RF a required component for these LENR systems. The opinion appears to be varied. On one hand, there is Rossi and CHAN/PHEN who claim RF is required; both of whom I consider dubious sources as far as this topic is concerned. It seems only Rossi and Chan/Phen know for sure if RF is being used; and I am not sure both of these entities are being truthful. Some people like Piantelli and Focardi seems to use RF for initiation of the process only. Many are of this persuasion. If I recall correctly, DGT does not seem to use RF. So Vortex gang, what is the consensus? Is RF required? If it is required, how does one deliver such a signal into the reactants? I have been mulling over the second problem of delivery and I am speculating that a coil of magnet wire around the reactor might work. To that end, I am designing a coil onto my reactor. But I can't seem to find an off the shelf component to drive the RF signal itself with enough power. It seems to me that the best way to do this is to simply use a broad-spectrum RF signal since we do not know exactly what frequency will initiate the phenomenom. Delivering a signal that contains all frequencies might work since one of those signal is bound to be the signal frequency that's required. Essentially a noise generator for the entire frequency range. Is such a signal generator possible? Does anyone know how such a device can be built? Remember we are not overly concerned with the signal itself, just the frequency and the power. In fact, an irregular signal would probably work better because of the varied harmonics present.
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
Frank, Based on your work and theory, how does one go about delivering this RF signal and at what freqency. I know it's just an educated guess but any wild guess from a physicist is much much much better than the most learned guess from me. - Original Message - From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF The work relates particle size to frequency of stimulation. The best read is The Control of the Natural Forces linked below. I've done lots of stimulation of wires and particles of nickle and palladium in hydrogen, helium, and deuterium.No thermal or RF energy was produced to date. I'm missing something and know not what it is. Frank Z -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 7:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF Yes there has been. My work on the subject. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterf.html Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:read Stanton Friedman's Flying Saucers and Science
In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Tue, 6 Mar 2012 00:01:42 -0500 (EST): Hi Frank, [snip] Fast neutrons should be 1% of light speed, oops. I have been following the thread To Radiate or not to Radiate and after reading Friedman's book; it would be nice if cold fusion could be encouraged to emit fast heavy particles in one direction. That could take probes to the nearest stars. A possible variation on my reactor will emit fast helium atoms in one direction at 10% of light speed. Resulting in a torch ship (for those of you old enough to have enjoyed '50s SF ;) Torch ships are good for exploring/exploiting the Solar system, but probably not sufficient for (significant) star travel. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Requesting recommendations on Web Authoring tools animation generation packages
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:18:42 -0500: Hi Jed, [snip] I have Gone to the Dark Side with WordPress. LENR-CANR.org is now converted and live. I am still making adjustments behind the scenes. See: http://lenr-canr.org I notice that the library now presents 2 vertical scroll bars, i.e. a window within a window. This is bloody nuisance, not to mention a waste of screen real estate. Can you simplify it to a single window? (Perhaps make the Summary Detail etc. header appear as tabs or a menu bar on the contained window?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF
Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:09 Dienstag, 6.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To RF or Not to RF how does one go about delivering this RF signal and at what freqency. I know it's just an educated guess but any wild guess from a physicist is much much much better than the most learned guess from me. jojo,, just a rough idea: if your reactive containment is somewhat longish, say 10mm dia, 50mm length and is conductive (ni-powder or whatever), You have two choices: maximize U or I in your volume. you do this by making the volume the endpoint of a transmission line, which is either open or shortcircuited at the end. If you shortcuircit the end, your maximize the I-component, if it is open-circuit, U (e-field) is maximized. To do this, You have to match the total length of your feed-system to the RF-frequency You use, very carefully. About how this works, you best study antenna theory and different feed techniques of the different antenna-types. Acutally, this is is an atypical sort of non-antenna, because you do not want to radiate RF, but want to maximize either U or I at the endpoint of a transmission-line. Basically I find this interesting and am quite sure, that nobody in the field ever did this in a systematic manner. This is a nontrivial task to understand and implement, but not outlandish. I spent the last couple of years constructing an RF-generator for cold-plasma generation with mismatched endpoints, to make a sloppy description, at the typical 13.56MHz, which is a technical frequency. The concept, as Jones (?) suggested, that there is a broadband noiselike excitation, is a shot in the dark, and may help, if the process is 'friendly' to such a diffuse excitation. If you are interested, I could go into more details, but this would entail a precise adaptation of any RF-generator to the exact geometry and physical construction of the reactive volume. Else it would be just blind guesswork. BTW, I am quite sure, that none of the usual suspects ever used moderately sophisticated RF-excitation in their systems, because a nuclear chemist or any plain vanilla nuclear phycisist does not understand the peculiarities of such a system. And I'm surrounded by a lot of them, rest assured. OK? greetings.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting recommendations on Web Authoring tools animation generation packages
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I notice that the library now presents 2 vertical scroll bars, i.e. a window within a window. This is bloody nuisance, not to mention a waste of screen real estate. Can you simplify it to a single window? That is a function of your screen size. There are no double bars on my computer. If there are horizontal ones this procedure should take care of them, as soon as I figure out how to make it work right: http://genesistutorials.com/genesis-structural-wraps-creating-a-full-width-genesis-child-theme To reduce vertical ones, I gave the screen a lot of empty space within the frame. You have to set pixels vertically; you can't just say 100%, the way you can horizontally. I may put a large button at the top saying Show only Library Screen which will link to the screen outside the iframe, like so: http://lenr-canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php Here is another view sorted by publication with 3 levels. Probably useless but programmers love to do this kind of thing: http://lenr-canr.org/index/Publications/Publications.php - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Requesting recommendations on Web Authoring tools animation generation packages
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 6 Mar 2012 20:38:09 -0500: Hi Jed, [snip] mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I notice that the library now presents 2 vertical scroll bars, i.e. a window within a window. This is bloody nuisance, not to mention a waste of screen real estate. Can you simplify it to a single window? That is a function of your screen size. Indeed. When one hits ctrl- often enough, the whole screen fits and they go away. Unfortunately by that time the font is so small as to be difficult to read. There are no double bars on my computer. If there are horizontal ones this procedure should take care of them, as soon as I figure out how to make it work right: http://genesistutorials.com/genesis-structural-wraps-creating-a-full-width-genesis-child-theme To reduce vertical ones, I gave the screen a lot of empty space within the frame. You have to set pixels vertically; you can't just say 100%, the way you can horizontally. I may put a large button at the top saying Show only Library Screen which will link to the screen outside the iframe, like so: http://lenr-canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php This is what it should look like. However I think the solution is to not have a frame embedded within a frame in the first place. What you need is to have the tool bar (menu bar?) at the top, attached to the same frame that is displayed in http://lenr-canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php, rather than being attached to an enclosing frame. It may need to be a menu rather than a toolbar. If you really want to keep both frames, then simply turn off the scroll bars on the external frame (since it doesn't really need to scroll anyway). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
